Thread Tools

Do the kind caring sweet mushy slobbering whack job liberals object to me referring this piece of stinking sh!t as a "Savage" why do the taxpayers have to keep this animal alive and feed him, he should have had his head cut off a long time ago and fed to a yard full of Pigs.

Do the kind caring sweet mushy slobbering whack job liberals object to me referring this piece of stinking sh!t as a "Savage" why do the taxpayers have to keep this animal alive and feed him, he should have had his head cut off a long time ago and fed to a yard full of Pigs.

The forum's most consistent antagonizer is obviously talking about members HERE. So Here's where Harry personally attacks every left-leaning member of the forum, but gets around being banned by not naming anyone specific, even though there's no mistaking who he's referring to.

Patters:
It's okay to call liberals or conservatives names. It's not okay to insult forum members or insult people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Those are the rules.

Click to expand...

... as long as you don't type their name, even though you refer to them by obvious implication. Noted.

patsfan13:
Note Harry never attacks anyone personally yet get more attacks on him than anyone else.

I have copied Patters on this message.

Click to expand...

It's almost as if this one relishes in being 180 degrees wrong in every discussion he engaged in. And nothing is ever done about the prodding. Which is fine, if the same were allowed the other way.

Here, I'll try. "Do the unkind, uncaring, abrasive, war-mongering, factually-challenged, closeted cons object to me calling a racist a racist?" Yeah, that would undoubtedly lead to an infraction and a thread banning.

But it's different for adorable Harry. Because well, he's old and stuff.

The forum's most consistent antagonizer is obviously talking about members HERE. So Here's where Harry personally attacks every left-leaning member of the forum, but gets around being banned by not naming anyone specific, even though there's no mistaking who he's referring to.

... as long as you don't type their name, even though you refer to them by obvious implication. Noted.

It's almost as if this one relishes in being 180 degrees wrong in every discussion he engaged in. And nothing is ever done about the prodding. Which is fine, if the same were allowed the other way.

Here, I'll try. "Do the unkind, uncaring, abrasive, war-mongering, factually-challenged, closeted cons object to me calling a racist a racist?" Yeah, that would undoubtedly lead to an infraction and a thread banning.

But it's different for adorable Harry. Because well, he's old and stuff.

The forum's most consistent antagonizer is obviously talking about members HERE. So Here's where Harry personally attacks every left-leaning member of the forum, but gets around being banned by not naming anyone specific, even though there's no mistaking who he's referring to.

... as long as you don't type their name, even though you refer to them by obvious implication. Noted.

It's almost as if this one relishes in being 180 degrees wrong in every discussion he engaged in. And nothing is ever done about the prodding. Which is fine, if the same were allowed the other way.

Here, I'll try. "Do the unkind, uncaring, abrasive, war-mongering, factually-challenged, closeted cons object to me calling a racist a racist?" Yeah, that would undoubtedly lead to an infraction and a thread banning.

But it's different for adorable Harry. Because well, he's old and stuff.

Click to expand...

yeah well you were banned when you were maverick4 and technically you aren't
supposed to be here under a different name ... just saying ... the glass houses
and stones thing ... mav. You had it in for Harry then and your mission continues.

PR answered the question according to his take. PatsFanInVA came the next closest by rephrasing the question(I think he thinks he's a savage BTW) and the rest pretty much deflected to other savages they're sure Harry doesn't consider savages and attacked Harry(I think they all think he's a savage too BTW). I'm just gonna come out and say the self confessed mastermind of 911 is a savage. You needn't deflect to these other things to avoid agreeing with Harry when Harry is right. That doesn't make you Harry. Lecture over...a little emotional right now, sorry.

This is in the news right now. It's not inappropriate to address. It brings back incredibly sad feelings for me. My best childhood friend lost his sister and brother in law at the Pentagon(both fight attendants). Fukc you Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, you are a savage.

So, is Harry also right when he addresses the liberals on this board as kind caring sweet mushy slobbering whack jobs, too?

If not, why not take the time to address that as well?

Click to expand...

I get on Harry from time to time. I try not to get personal with anyone but I know I'm not always up to it. This particular subject is a sore one for me though. 911 and my personal connections to it really shook me up. I guess I'd like to have more company? I think I do really but I think the OP's identity prevents them from expressing the sentiment....it's like giving in to all his stuff if they agree on any of them. Anyway, maybe I'm kinda straying from the question at hand too, that is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being a savage or not. I say he is.

yeah well you were banned when you were maverick4 and technically you aren't
supposed to be here under a different name ... just saying ... the glass houses
and stones thing ... mav. You had it in for Harry then and your mission continues.